Where are we right now??

[RandyS]

New people and new ideas are fine. But would you really be happy with a new television series that effectively took place in a different universe from the established one? Because if you would be, I literally can't understand that one iota.

So if there was a new tv series that took place in the Mirror Universe would you be just as rejecting?

The point is it's not a different universe. It's just a different timeline. I'd be happy with a series showing the E2 timeline from ENT or a series showing one of the timelines from that TNG ep with the multiple timelines. I'd be happy with one of Braxton's timelines. It's all the same universe, just showing Our Heroes after different choices are made.

It's ironic that you mention TNG's "Parrallels", because as far as I personally am concerned, THAT'S exactly what JJ's Trek is. A different universe from the Shatner/Stewart/Brooks/Mulgrew/Bacula one. The new movies take nothing away from the old shows, and with 285,000 parrallel universes out there, there's no reason why they should. Both are equally valid in their own way. Pine commands a USS Enterprise in a completely different universe from Shatner, but Shatner and co are still there.

 

[Miss Lemon]

TOS always had more heart and wore its emotions on its sleeve. The opening of ST09 and later scenes such as the death of Amanda have more heart and emotion than entire seasons of TNG and VOY. So to my mind ST09 is following the TOS lead.

So true. But I can also understand how some people might have missed that being blinded by all the lens flare.

I didn't see much heart in TMP. The sets were a bit cold and sterile. The characterizations off. The plot a retread of a better written episode. Even the scenes where we are supposed to "feel" something fall flat. It pretty much missed the "essence" of what Star Trek is by a mile.

My feelings about this movie exactly. Now -that- was an earth-shattering change of approach. The only scene that felt real was the sickbay scene. Did they really have to change everybody's personality to get to this emotional climax?

I guess the changes make more sense after reading the book (or some slash fanfiction), but as a movie experience it was a cold experience indeed.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

Not sure how that tracks. Cynicism????

Its not difficult to see what I mean. Basically anytime a movie studio reboots a franchise, its a pretty cynical move.
And by moving to an alternate reality, its like saying the existing reality had no life left in it which is BS. The decision to reboot by Paramound was clearly not a creative one. It was so they could use the brand recognition of those well known characters who had already been developed by the pens of other writers and producers.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

character.

Frankly the 24th Century shows always came across as a bit "heartless" to me. TOS always had more heart and wore its emotions on its sleeve. The opening of ST09 and later scenes such as the death of Amanda have more heart and emotion than entire seasons of TNG and VOY.

So "heart" is people dying in a way that makes the viewer sad?

So to my mind ST09 is following the TOS lead. Which I guess might be a problem for fans of the 24th Century shows.

I agree it is following the TOS lead, but not necessarily out of something called "heart". I think it captures the TOS feel very well:

The focus on the connection between Kirk and Spock, the development of which was a main theme of the film (from adversarial to connected).

The ensemble jesting and bonhomie which could have easily been left behind as a product of 60's formulaic tv but which was very evident. I was surprised to see this.

There was a lot of stuff which felt like a TOS film.. the personal journey of Our Heroes. The humor--TNG films had far less humor IMHO.

And I suppose you could call all that "heart". I think DS9 had that at times, the war brought the characters together. However TOS is much more of a buddy trip and I think the movie did capture that well.

 

[Miss Lemon]

So "heart" is people dying in a way that makes the viewer sad?

Doesn't the fact that the death of a character that was onscreen for only 10 minutes made you sad prove it had a heart?

I literally cried when Kirk Sr. died. And I don't go crybaby with every other movie.

I don't like my favourite characters dying in movies/series either, but from a dramatic storytelling point of view it sometimes is the right choice. I'd rather cry my eyes over a movie than go meh.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

So "heart" is people dying in a way that makes the viewer sad?

Doesn't the fact that the death of a character that was onscreen for only 10 minutes made you sad prove it had a heart?

I guess I find the word "heart" too subjective to be much use. I cried when George Kirk died too, though less about him and more about Winona having just given birth and knowing her husband was dead. And though this might affect me in any movie with complete stranger characters these people were important because they were James T. Kirk's parents, a man who was very much not a stranger. So for me it was all about my relationship to Kirk all these long years.

And yes it was very well done which made me very happy even as I was wiping the tears.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

Not sure how that tracks. Cynicism????

Its not difficult to see what I mean. Basically anytime a movie studio reboots a franchise, its a pretty cynical move.
And by moving to an alternate reality, its like saying the existing reality had no life left in it which is BS. The decision to reboot by Paramound was clearly not a creative one. It was so they could use the brand recognition of those well known characters who had already been developed by the pens of other writers and producers.

Its a business/creative move, that doesn't have to mean it has to cynical. Cynics are people with a negative, pessimistic view of people and their motivations. Sounds to me that the "cynical" additude might be found elsewhere.

So "heart" is people dying in a way that makes the viewer sad?

Doesn't the fact that the death of a character that was onscreen for only 10 minutes made you sad prove it had a heart?

I guess I find the word "heart" too subjective to be much use. I cried when George Kirk died too, though less about him and more about Winona having just given birth and knowing her husband was dead. And though this might affect me in any movie with complete stranger characters these people were important because they were James T. Kirk's parents, a man who was very much not a stranger. So for me it was all about my relationship to Kirk all these long years.

And yes it was very well done which made me very happy even as I was wiping the tears.

Heart to me means emotional impact. So yes the deaths of George Sr and Amanda have heart. So does the banter between Kirk and McCoy through out the film, as does Pike's courage in the face of torture and the way Uhura reaches out to Spock. Its sadness, humor and the way the characters interact and react with each other. That's something TNG fell short on, in my opinion. There just wasn't that bond and on the big screen it became more apparent. Stewart is a great actor as is Spiner but the bond between Kirk and Spock, Spock and McCoy and McCoy and Spock is much stronger than the one between Picard and Data.

 

[xortex]

It's one thing to see a younger Kirk when you know what he's going to turn into but it's another thing when he seems to be a young punk on a starship that might turn out worse than Nero.

 

[Greg Cox]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

You say "cynical." I say "pragmatic."

And, again, this tends to be the natural life-cycle of popular series. If and when they finally get around to rebooting Logan's Run or Space: 1999, I'm sure we'll go through this whole debate again . . .

And, regarding TMP, I recall people complaining that it was too cold and cerebral and lacked the warmth and camarderie of the original series. There were also complaints that the movie emphasized flashy special effects at the expense of the characters and their relationships.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's one thing to see a younger Kirk when you know what he's going to turn into but it's another thing when he seems to be a young punk on a starship that might turn out worse than Nero.

And what indicates he would be "worse than Nero"? Last time I saw the movie he saved the Earth and defeated Nero in heroic fashion. No indications he would go on a Galaxy wide genocidal killing spree.

 

[xortex]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

You say "cynical." I say "pragmatic."

And, again, this tends to be the natural life-cycle of popular series. If and when they finally get around to rebooting Logan's Run or Space: 1999, I'm sure we'll go through this whole debate again . . .

And, regarding TMP, I recall people complaining that it was too cold and cerebral and lacked the warmth and camarderie of the original series. There were also complaints that the movie emphasized flashy special effects at the expense of the characters and their relationships.

Have you read 'Cold Equations' lately? Baby with bathwater. There's a strain that runs throughout Trek. It's not there any longer. I wonder why David Mack is using that title. Mmm, is it because he is...

 

[Greg Cox]

I actually cite "The Cold Equations" by name in The Rings of Time. Must be something in the air . . .

 

[xortex]

It's not mystical or magical anymore, it's scientific. Connecting dots equals big pay check. I believe they refer to that as a lock or a fix or a rap.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Whats not "mystical or magical anymore"?

I don't believe "fix", "lock" and wrap ( or rap even) are quite the synonyms you think they are.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Its a business/creative move, that doesn't have to mean it has to cynical. Cynics are people with a negative, pessimistic view of people and their motivations. Sounds to me that the "cynical" additude might be found elsewhere.

I think most people are cynical of Hollwood studios and their motivations/actions. That's nothing new. You seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase a "cynical decision" or "cynical move"...
It was a cynical decision because the studio clearly wanted to go back to Trek well for more cash and they thought that by combining the most recognizable characters with a hot, new director and hot new, young stars that they'd get the maximum potential for profitability.........now I know studios have to make money but as a fan, that's not exactly a major concern for me. If Paramount discovered that it could double profits in season 4 of TNG by getting rid of Data and adding a belly dancing Ferengi to the senior crew who screws up here face every 5 minutes and says the catchphrase "I just climaxed", I'd hardly be jumping for joy that they'd increased their profit margins, I'd be upset by a change to a show that I feel was for the worse. My interest is not in how much money Trek makes but rather the Trek that I love continues or at least has the potential to return. And I don't see Abramstrek as representing the Trek I love, and in actual fact as something that might prevent the Trek I love (Prime trek) from returning.
So you're not going to find me saying "Star Trek '09" was good because it showed Trek could be profitable again.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And I don't see Abramstrek as representing the Trek I love, and in actual fact as something that might prevent the Trek I love (Prime trek) from returning.

The lack of an audience is precisely what prevented 24th Century Star Trek from staying on the big screen. nuTrek will never be responsible for anything in that regard.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Its a business/creative move, that doesn't have to mean it has to cynical. Cynics are people with a negative, pessimistic view of people and their motivations. Sounds to me that the "cynical" additude might be found elsewhere.

I think most people are cynical of Hollwood studios and their motivations/actions. That's nothing new. You seem to be unfamiliar with the phrase a "cynical decision" or "cynical move"...
It was a cynical decision because the studio clearly wanted to go back to Trek well for more cash and they thought that by combining the most recognizable characters with a hot, new director and hot new, young stars that they'd get the maximum potential for profitability.........now I know studios have to make money but as a fan, that's not exactly a major concern for me. If Paramount discovered that it could double profits in season 4 of TNG by getting rid of Data and adding a belly dancing Ferengi to the senior crew who screws up here face every 5 minutes and says the catchphrase "I just climaxed", I'd hardly be jumping for joy that they'd increased their profit margins, I'd be upset by a change to a show that I feel was for the worse. My interest is not in how much money Trek makes but rather the Trek that I love continues or at least has the potential to return. And I don't see Abramstrek as representing the Trek I love, and in actual fact as something that might prevent the Trek I love (Prime trek) from returning.
So you're not going to find me saying "Star Trek '09" was good because it showed Trek could be profitable again.

I understand the term but I fail to see how the actual decision is cynical. Why is returning to/recasting the TOS characters, hiring a new director is cynical?Wanting the movies to make money isn't cynical either. I'm pretty sure the studio and everyone involved with want the best for Star Trek which is optimistic not cynical. While you might define the "best" being continuing with the 24th Century characters they don't. You can't accuse the people in charge with cynicism
just because they're preventing you from getting what you want.

I don't expect people to like ST09 because it was profitable. I expect them to like it because it was entertaining. All profitable means is we get another film.

 

[Greg Cox]

So you're not going to find me saying "Star Trek '09" was good because it showed Trek could be profitable again.

Once again, you seem to be putting words in people's mouths and presuming to read our minds. Every movie is a mixture of art and commerce, so why assume that remakes are, by definition, more cynical than just making another Star Trek movie set in the old timeline?

Why not entertain the notion that somebody somewhere thought that rebooting Star Trek was a good idea, creatively and commercially?

You might not agree with that artistic choice, and you may question the results, but that doesn't mean that reboots are Bad Things by definition and that anyone who doesn't see that must be cynical or delusional. Maybe it just seemed like a fun idea at the time?

Again, I really don't want to get sucked into another endless debate about a movie that came out three years ago, but what it really seems to come down to is that the new movie wasn't what you personally wanted--and you seem unwiling to accept that other Trek fans might not be bothered by the same issues that are so important to you.

 

[xortex]

The issue is important to the integrity of Star Trek. Couldn't they have rebooted without dropping the timeline? Sadistically sabotaging it to control it's fate is cynical whereas a reboot by Strazinski say would not disavow the events of Tos but restart them. This is not restarting them. This is sidestepping them. Big difference. And for the sake of a trilogy. This is why the word cynical comes up. A new series by Strazinski would feature the same Kirk in the theoretical same time line had it run long at all. Now we have this AU doppleganger arrogant have your cake and eat it too smug bastard. No not JJ. Like forever. They didn't do this to Batman, Superman or Sherlock Holmes, did they?

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The lack of an audience is precisely what prevented 24th Century Star Trek from staying on the big screen.

So fine, keep it off the big screen, the small screen has always been the real home of Trek. Give Trek a freaking break for more than 4 years and then come back with a new TV series. Coming back only 4 years after Enterprise's cancellation with some strange alternate universe/reboot dealy was just...horrible in my opinion, that's not what I wanted to see for Trek at all.
I'd rather have another 20 years without Trek than have it sell its soul.

While you might define the "best" being continuing with the 24th Century characters they don't. You can't accuse the people in charge with cynicism
just because they're preventing you from getting what you want.

Yes, I can. It was quite clearly a cynical move. Back to the Star Trek well after only 4 years of no Trek on the air, and let's make a super-flashy reboot/reimagining of the original series with hardly any connection to existent Trek except for a cameo.
Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Why not entertain the notion that somebody somewhere thought that rebooting Star Trek was a good idea, creatively, and commercially?

Reboots are the easy way out of a jam. Look at the James Bond series, it reached a creative low with "Die Another Day" and instead of just saying "let's make the next one great guys", they slap the term "reboot" on it to draw some attention.
Just like with Trek, Enterprise had been canceled and Nemesis flopped. Difficult to get back on top......so let's take the short way out and take a step back by doing reimagining of the 60s TV show with all new actors.
Regardkess of how high the quality the movie turns out to be, the decision to "reboot" a series is often simply a lazy and uncreative way to revive a flagging series.
And actually now its happening with Spiderman, the ultimate example of the unnecessary reboot. The idea that a reboot can revitalize a series is simply a mirage in my opinion. I think Spiderman/Bond/Trek could just as well have been revitalized given a non-reboot entry with equally highly quality material